^ 469 
C31 



1 



The Hampton Roads 
Conference 



A REFUTATION of the Statement that 
Mr. Lincoln said if Union was written at 
the top the Southern Commissioners might 

fill in the balance. — By Julian S. Carr. 

-V 







£31 



■I 



The True Story of the Hampton 
Roads Conference between Mr. 
Lincoln and Wm. H. Seward on 
\ one side and Alex. Stephens and 

] other Confederate Commissioners 

! on the other side. 

A refutation of the statement that 
I Mr. Lincoln told AlexanderStephens 

! that if he were permitted to write 

I Union at the top, the South might 

fill in the balance. 
i 

A demonstration that Mr. Stephens 

never made any such report. 



BY 



JULIAN S. CARR 

DURHAM, N. C. 




GENERAL JULIAN S. CARR, 
Durham, North Carolina. 



The Hampton Roads Conference. 

It is common to hear that President Lincoln, at 
the Hampton Roads Conference, during the War 
between the States, said to Vice President Stephens 
something like this: ''Let me write 'Union' at the 
top of a sheet of paper, and then you may write 
after it whatever you please." 

The effect of the story as it is generally told is 
to make a good impression about President Lincoln 
and a bad impression about President Davis ; the one 
big-souled and yielding, and the other blind and 
self-destructive. 

The beginnings of the story seem to have been 
very early. The Conference was held on February 
3, 1865, and on February 6th the Louisville Demo- 
crat contained this item : 

"According to the 'Herald's' (New York) correspondent 
the President (Lincoln) is reported to have proposed to 
Messrs. Stephens, Hunter, and Campbell (Confederate Com- 
missioners) that if they were prepared to promise the return 
of their States to the Union, he was ready to waive all minor 
questions but that of Chief Magistrate of the republic, sworn 
to maintain the Union and laws." 

Then, in the Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle and Sen- 
tinel there appeared in the issue of June 7, 1865, 
what purported to be an interview with Vice Presi- 
dent Stephens about the Hampton Roads Confer- 
ence. (It will be shown later that Mr. Stephens 
repeatedly and even bitterly complained about the 
incorrectness and injustice of this article.) 

Then, Judge John H. Reagan in his Memoirs 
(p. 177) mentions the names of four persons who 
averred that Mr. Stephens himself was the original 
author of the story, to-wit : The Hon. Henry Wat- 
terson of Kentucky, the Rev. E. A. Green of Vir- 
ginia, Dr. R. J. Massey of Georgia, and Mr. Howell 
of Georgia. These persons are quoted as saying 



that they heard Mr. Stephens himself expressly 
assert it. 

In addition to these, Mr. Henry Watterson, 
in the Louisville Courier-Journal of June 20, 1916, 
avers that Mr. Stephens, on the night of his arrival 
in Richmond from Hampton Roads, told this story 
to *'Mr. Felix G. DeFontaine, with whom he lodged 
and who, when the facts were disputed, made oath 
to the truth of them." In the same editorial, Mr. 
Watterson says Mr. Stephens said it to him per- 
sonally. 

So the authorship of this story about Union and 
the sheet of paper is charged to Mr. Alexander H. 
Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy and a 
member of the Hampton Roads Conference. 

The purpose of this paper is to examine the 
available sources of information, and follow the data 
to such a conclusion as the records may warrant. 
In its preparation, the following have been exam- 
ined, and are the basis of its conclusions : 

Augusta Chronicle and Sentinel, June 7, 1865. 

Louisville Democrat, Feb. 6, 1865. 

Louisville Courier-J oiirnal. May 2, 1916. 

Louisville Courier -Journal, June 20, 1916. 

Lincoln's Message to House, Feb. 10, 1865. War 
of the Rebellion, Series I, Vol. XLVI, p. 505. 

Lincoln's Instructioyis to Seivard, Jan. 31, 1865. 
War of the Rebellion, Ibid, 

Lincoln's Life, by Nicolay and Hay, Vol. X. 

Seward's Letter to Adams, War of the Rebellion, 
Series III, Vol. IV, pp. 1163-1164. 

Report of Confederate Commissioners, Feb. 5, 
1865. War of the Rebellion, Series I, Vol. XLVI, 
p. 446. 

Bsiwis' Message to Congress, Feb. 6, 1865. War 
of the Rebellion, Series I, Vol. XLVI, p. 446. 



Davis' Rise and Fall of the Confederate Govern- 
ment, Vol. II, pp. 611-620. 

Stephens' War Between the States, Vol. II, 
Chap. XIII. Published 1870. 

Stephens' Pictorial History of the United 
States. 

Stephens' Recollections : Diary kept while a 
prisoner at Ft. Warren; 16 references to Hampton 
Roads Conference. 

Stephens' Letters and Speeches, by Henry 
Cleveland, pp. 198-200. Published 1866. 

Stephens' Life, by Pendleton, pp. 330-342. Pub- 
lished 1908. 

Stephens' Five Articles in Controversy with B. 
H. Hill in Atlanta Herald, April 17, May 8, 25, 31, 
June 5, 1874. 

Campbell's Recollection, Southern Magazine, 
Dec, 1874. P. 191. 

Hunter's Account, Southern Historical Society 
Papers, Vol. Ill, p. 175. April, 1877. 

Goode's Account, The Forum, Vol. XXIX, p. 92- 
103. March, 1900. 

Hill's Life, Letters and Speeches, p. 399. 

Hill's Umvritteii History of Hampton Roads 
Conference, Atlanta Herald, May 3, 1874. 

Reagan's Memoirs, Chap. XIII. Published 1906. 

Gordon's Reminiscences. 

Watterson's Might-Have-Beens of History, Cou- 
rier-Journal, May 2 and June 20, 1916. 

This conference was held February 3, 1865. Its 
object was to find, if possible, some terms of ending 
the Civil War between the Northern and Southern 
States. 

It was brought about by Francis P. Blair, Sr., 
an influential journalist of Washington. He was 
a native of Abingdon, Virginia, had lived in Ken- 



tucky, but was at this time a citizen of Maryland. 
He was a Democrat, and had been a personal friend 
of President Davis, but had supported Lincoln for 
President, and fellowshipped with the North during 
the war. 

Blair thought peace might be brought about by 
getting the two Governments to suspend hostilities 
against each other, and join their forces in a com- 
mon campaign against Maximilian and the French 
in Mexico, in an application of the Monroe Doctrine. 
He surmised that, by the time this task should be 
finished, and because it would have been jointly 
done, the animosities between the two sections 
would be so assuaged. North and South could settle 
their differences without further bloodshed. 

He presented his idea first of all to President 
Lincoln, who gave him a passport to Richmond. 
There he laid his project before President Davis, 
in a private interview. Mr. Davis first satisfied him^- 
self that he was an informal, though unofficial, rep- 
resentative of President Lincoln; made a written 
memorandum of the interview ; submitted the same 
to Blair for his approval of its correctness; and, on 
January 12, 1865, gave him a note, in which he said: 

"I am willing now, as heretofore, to enter into negoti- 
ations for the restoration of peace." 

Blair received this note, and took it to Washing- 
ton, and showed it to President Lincoln. He then 
brought back to Richmond a note dated January 18, 
1865, in which Mr. Lincoln said : 

"I have constantly been, am now, and shall continue 
ready to receive any agent whom he, or any other influential 
person now resisting National authority, may informally send 
me, with a view of securing peace to the people of our com- 
mon country." 

The way was thus cleared for both Presidents to 
appoint conferees, and arrange for the meeting. 



President Davis appointed three commissioners 
— Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, Senator 
Robert M. T. Hunter, and Assistant Secretary of 
War John A. Campbell. 

He thus entrusted the mission to the gentlemen 
most likely to succeed. All three of them were 
known to the public as critics of Mr. Davis' admin- 
istration of Confederate affairs. They persistently 
believed that the war could be settled by negotiation, 
if only a fair trial were made. They were at least 
in as good favour at Washington as any men who 
could be selected, particularly Mr. Stephens. He 
and Mr. Lincoln had been fellow-Whigs, and per- 
sonal friends, and Mr. Lincoln had expressed a de- 
sire that he might have him as a member of his 
Cabinet. He had been opposed to secession from the 
beginning, and had all along been an aggressive ad- 
vocate of peace by negotiation. The Northern 
papers of the day were diligently circulating the 
report that he was on the eve of severing his con- 
nection with the Richmond Government and the 
cause of the South. Mr. Hunter was a leading mal- 
content in the Confederate Senate, and Mr. Lincoln 
was known to entertain a very high regard for 
Judge Campbell. Mr. Davis, furthermore, knew 
that he himself was bitterly disliked at Washington, 
and this animosity toward him personally would 
likely handicap any negotiations for peace. He also 
well understood that, if the conference should fail, 
all the blame and censure would be heaped upon 
him. So he selected conferees who could most likely 
get favourable terms for the South. 

He gave his commissioners the following instruc- 
tions : 

"Richmond, January 28, 1865. 

"In conformity with the letter of Mr. Lincoln, of which 
the foregoing is a copy, you are to proceed to Washington 

7 



City for an informal conference with him upon the issues 
involved in the existing war, and for the purpose of securing 
peace to the two countries. 

"With great respect, your obedient servant, 

"JEFFERSON DAVIS." 

He thus left his commissioners untrammeled. 
The conference they were to go to was to be "infor- 
mal." The matters they were to confer about were 
"the issues involved in the existing war." The 
object which they were to seek was "peace to the 
two countries." There were no supplementary oral 
instructions which "tied their hands." Their pow- 
ers were unqualified, except by the terms of the 
President's written note. There were "tw^o coun- 
tries" at the moment this note was given, but he 
did not bind the commissioners to make such a 
settlement as would leave "two countries" in exist- 
ence after the conference. The clause about the 
"two countries" w^as merely descriptive of the status 
quo at the beginning of the conference. 

President Lincoln appointed as his representa- 
tive his Secretary of State, William H. Seward, 
known by every one to be unusually astute, if not 
foxy, and bitterly hostile to the South. He gave 
him the following instructions, specifically defining 
what he was to require as "indispensable:" 

"Executive Mansion, Jan. 31, 1865. 
"Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of War: 

"You will proceed to Fortress Monroe, Va., there to meet 
and informally confer with Messrs. Stephens, Hunter, and 
Campbell, on the basis of my letter to F. P. Blair, Esq., of 
Jan. 18, 1865, a copy of which you have. You will make 
known to them that three things are indispensable, to-wit: 
1st, the restoration of the national authority throughout all 
the States; 2nd, no receding by the Executive of the United 
States on the slavery question from the position assumed 
thereon in the late Annual Message to Congress, and in the 
preceding documents; 3rd, no cessation of hostilities short of 
an end of the war and the disbanding of all the forces hostile 



to the Government. You will inform them that all proposi- 
tions of theirs not inconsistent with the above will be con- 
sidered and passed upon in a spirit of sincere liberality. 
You will hear all that they may choose to say and report to 
me. You will not assume to definitely consummate anything. 
"Yours, etc., ABRAHAM LINCOLN." 

Mr. Seward was thus instructed by his Presi- 
dent to require three things as ''indispensable" pre- 
liminaries to any subsequent terms: (1) submis- 
sion, (2) emancipation, (3) disbandment of the 
Southern armies. Nothing was to be entertained 
''inconsistent" with these demands. 

After many difficulties and much dispatching, 
the conference was held, not at Washington, but at 
Hampton Roads on February 3, 1865. When the 
Confederate commissioners reached the place of 
meeting, they found that President Lincoln him- 
self had joined Mr. Seward. 

The conference was held in the saloon of the 
River Queen, a small steamer, anchored out in the 
stream for the sake of greater privacy. The meet- 
ing lasted for four hours. It was held behind closed 
doors. Messrs. Lincoln, Seward, Stephens, Hunter 
and Campbell were all present throughout the entire 
time. Besides these five, no other person entered the 
room, except' that once a negro servant came in, and 
was promptly sent out. At the outset, the wily 
Seward proposed that there be no secretary and 
nothing like minutes. So no written memorandum 
of anything said or done was made at the time. 

What, then, did transpire at this conference? 
What terms of peace were offered to the Confeder- 
ate commissioners? 

It would seem to be easy to answer this question, 
because every member of the conference — the only 
ones who could possibly know — has written and 
printed and given to the public, each his own ac- 



count of what did occur. And every one of these 
accounts agree. There is no variation as to the 
substantive terms that w^ere there proposed. 

And yet there has been much discussion, down 
to the present day, as to what was precisely pro- 
posed to the South at that conference. Some con- 
tend that the only terms offered were ''unconditional 
submission." Others contend that President Lin- 
coln said to Mr. Stephens, the chairman of the Con- 
federate representatives, words to this effect, 
''Stephens, let me write Union and you can write 
after it what you please." And so the great-hearted 
and generous-minded Lincoln offered them recon- 
ciliation and peace on their own terms! 

Now let us carefully examine all the available 
sources of information on this subject, and accept 
the conclusion to which they lead. 

President Lincoln's Account. 

The contemporary newspapers of the day filled 
all the public mind with conjectural reports of what 
had taken place at Hampton Roads. For example, 
the Louisville Democrat, in its issue of February 
6, 1865, contained this item : 

"According to the 'Herald's' correspondent the President 
is reported to have proposed to Messrs. Stephens, Hunter, 
and Campbell that if they were prepared to promise the re- 
turn of their States to the Union he was ready to waive all 
minor questions but that of Chief Magistrate of the republic, 
sworn to maintain the Union and laws." 

Then the Herald, under the same date, gives an- 
other current report to the effect that ''no concession 
or promise was made by him (Lincoln) in the least 
degree yielding." 

These conflicting newspaper stories lead the 
Federal House of Representatives, on February the 
8th, to pass a resolution requesting President Lin- 

10 



coin himself to give a true account of what did 
happen at Hampton Roads. 

He complied with this request, and on February 
the 10th sent an official Message to the House, pur- 
porting to give a correct account of the matter. In 
this Message he first quotes all the letters and tele- 
grams and communications leading up to the con- 
ference, and then concludes with these words : 

"On the morning of the 3rd, the gentlemen, Messrs. 
Stephens, Hunter, and Campbell, came aboard our steamer 
and had an interview with the Secretary of State and myself 
of several hours' duration. No question of preliminaries to 
the meeting was then and there made or mentioned. No 
other person was present. No papers were exchanged or pro- 
duced, and it was in advance agreed that the conversation was 
to be informal and verbal merely. On my part the whole 
substance of the instructions to the Secretary of State, here- 
inbefore recited, was stated and insisted upon, and nothing 
was said inconsistent therewith. * * * The Conference 
ended without result. The foregoing, containing, as is be- 
lieved, all the information sought, is respectfully submitted." 
—"War of the Rebellion," Series I, Vol. XLVI, pp. 505-513. 

Mr. Lincoln being the reporter, what did he offer 
at Hampton Roads ? He says, ''On my part * * * 
nothing was said inconsistent" with his instruc- 
tions to Secretary Seward, and he had instructed 
Seward to demand three things: (1) submission to 
National authority, (2) emancipation of the ne- 
groes, (3) disbandment of Confederate armies. 
But, if he said, as is alleged, ''Let me write Union, 
and you can write what you please," he said some- 
thing seriously "inconsistent" with his instructions 
to Secretary Seward, and his message was not hon- 
est and truthful. It is unbelievable that Mr. Lin- 
coln did thus misrepresent the facts to the House. 
What he himself substantively says he demanded 
at Hampton Roads was equal to "unconditional sub- 
mission." 

11 



Secretary Seward's Account. 

This is found in a letter to Charles P'rancis 
Adams, United States Minister to London. This 
letter was dated February 7, 1865, four days after 
the conference, and is printed in the Wai' of the 
Rebellion, Series III, Vol. IV, pp. 1163-1164. In it 
Mr. Seward says : 

"The President 'announced that we can agree to no cessa- 
tion, or suspension of hostilities, except on the basis of the 
disbandment of the insurgent forces and the restoration of 
national authority throughout all the States in the Union. 
Collaterally, * * * the President announced that he must 
not be expected to depart from the positions he had here- 
tofore assumed in his proclamation of emancipation * * * 
It was further declared by the President that the complete 
restoration of the national authority everywhere was an in- 
dispensable condition of any assent on our part to whatever 
form of peace might be proposed.' " 

This is not the entire letter, but there is nothing 
in it which can possibly be construed as inconsist- 
ent with what is quoted. Mr. Seward here asserts 
that the President announced as ''indispensable" 
pre-conditions, (1) *'the disbandment of the insur- 
gent forces," (2) the maintenance of ''his proclama- 
tion of emancipation," and (3) "the complete resto- 
ration of the national authority." All of this means 
"unconditional submission," and is absolutely incon- 
sistent with anything even approximating, "You 
can have Union on your own terms." 

Report of the Confederate Commissioners. 

On their return from the Hampton Roads Con- 
ference, the three Confederate Commissioners 
made a unanimous report of what took place at the 
meeting. As you read it, as copied below, notice 
whether there is anything in it that even sounds 
like Lincoln saying, "Stephens, let me write Union, 
and you can write what you please." 

X2 



"Richmond, Va., February 5, 1865. 
"To the President of the Confederate States: 

"Sir: — Under your letter of appointment of the 28th ult., 
we proceeded to seek an 'informal conference' with Abraham 
Lincoln, President of the United States, upon the subject men- 
tioned in the letter. The conference was granted, and took 
place on the 30th inst. (clearly the date was February 3d), 
on board of a steamer in Hampton Roads, where we met 
President Lincoln and the Hon. Mr. Seward, Secretary of the 
State of the United States. It continued for several hours, 
and was both full and explicit. 

"We learned from them that the Message of President 
Lincoln to the Congress of the United States, in December 
last, explains clearly and distinctly his sentiments as to the 
terms, conditions, and method of proceeding, by which peace 
can be secured to the people, and we were not informed that 
they would be modified or altered to obtain that end. We 
understand from him that no terms or proposals of any treaty, 
or agreement, looking to an ultimate settlement, would be 
entertained or made by him with the Confederate States, 
because that would be a recognition of their existence as a 
separate Power, which, under no circumstances, would be 
done; and for this reason that no such terms would be enter- 
tained by him from the States separately; that no extended 
truce or armistice (as at present advised) would be granted, 
without a satisfactory assurance in advance of a complete 
restoration of the authority of the United States over all 
places within the States of the Confederacy. 

"That whatever consequences may follow from the re- 
establishment of that authority must be accepted; but that 
individuals, subject to pains and penalties under the laws of 
the United States, might rely upon a very liberal use of the 
power confided to him to remit those pains and penalties if 
peace be restored. 

"During the Conference the proposed Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States, adopted by Congress on the 
31st ult., was brought to our notice. This Amendment de- 
clares that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except 
for crimes, should exist within the United States, or any 
place within their jurisdiction, and that Congress should have 
power to enforce this Amendment by appropriate legislation. 
Of all the correspondence that preceded the conference herein 

13 



mentioned, and leading to the same, you have heretofore 

been informed. 

"Very respectfully, your obedient servants, 
"ALEX. H. STEPHENS, 
"ROBERT M. T. HUNTER, 
"JOHN A. CAMPBELL." 

War of the Rebellion, Series I, Vol. XLVI, p. 446. 

Stephens' War Betiveeri the States, Vol. II, p. 
792. 

These three signers were competent to tell what 
transpired at the Hampton Roads Conference, be- 
cause they were there from its beginning to its end, 
and participated in all its deliberations. Their 
summing-up of the matter was deliberate, and sub- 
mitted as their official account of what took place. 
They had every reason to believe that whatever they 
said would affect the conduct of the President of 
the Confederacy, of his Congress, of his Military 
Department, and react upon the public sentiment of 
the Southern people. We must believe that their 
report was serious, and that they intended to put 
Mr. Davis into possession of the exact state of Mr. 
Lincoln's mind as to the ending of the hostilities 
between the two sections. We cannot imagine that 
they were trifling, or suppressive, or dupiicitous. 
We must hold such gentlemen, under such circum- 
stances, to have been sincere and honest and fully 
conscious in this account. Any other view is a 
grave aspersion upon them. 

They formally and officially informed Mr. Davis 
that Mr. Lincoln would entertain no ''terms," or 
''conditions," or "methods of proceeding," or "pro- 
posals," or "agreement," or "truce," or "armistice," 
"without a satisfactory assurance in advance of a 
complete restoration of the authority of the United 
States over all places within the States of the Con- 
federacy." This can mean nothing else, under the 

14 



circumstances, but that the Confederate Govern- 
ment must first surrender, before Mr. Lincoln would 
consider Blair's project of applying the Monroe 
Doctrine to Maximilian and Mexico, or anything 
else. Their report assured Mr. Davis that Mr. 
Lincoln was implacable, and determined to drive 
the war, without any interruption whatsoever, to 
utter subjugation. This would not have been true, 
had Mr. Lincoln at any time, or in any manner, 
said, in words or in substance, "Give me Union on 
your own terms." 

Moreover, the three Southern members of this 
conference were critics and opponents of Mr. 
Davis' administration. Mr. Stephens was the ring- 
leader of the malcontents and obstructionists at 
Richmond, and soon after this conference left the 
Confederate Capitol, and went to his home in Geor- 
gia, to nurse his dissatisfaction and disgust with 
Mr. Davis' conduct of affairs. He and Hunter and 
Campbell and their like-minded associates were in 
favour of trying to settle the controversy by some 
diplomatic compromise, while Mr. Davis felt, con- 
sistently and persistently persuaded that it would 
have to be fought to a finish. If, therefore, Mr. 
Lincoln had said at Hampton Roads, ''Let me write 
Union, and you can write anything else you want," 
it is inconceivable that these gentlemen, struggling 
as they had been for some compromise, would not 
have promptly and avariciously seized upon it, com- 
mitted the country to it there and then, rushed back 
to Richmond, proclaimed it, capitalized it, and set 
to work to put it through. 

But they did not pursue this course. They came 
back with the lugubrious report that they found 
Mr. Lincoln implacable, and that he would consider 
nothing but the complete surrender of the Southern 
Statej 

15 



Report of President Davis. 

The Confederate Commissioners not only made 
their written report of the Conference to President 
Davis, but Mr. Stephens says, "We reported to him, 
verbally, all that had occurred at the Conference, 
and much more minutely in detail than I have given 
you." We may assume that Mr. Davis had full 
and free interviews with his commissioners, after 
their return to Richmond, and that they put him in 
possession of the minutest inside details of all that 
was said and done at the meeting. Mr. Stephens 
says that they withheld nothing, and it is unthink- 
able that such honorable gentlemen would have kept 
back one iota of important information. Did they 
tell Mr. Davis that Mr. Lincoln had said that the 
Confederate Government could have Union on its 
own terms? 

If they did, Mr. Davis deliberately falsiiied to 
the House of Representatives, for on February 6th 
he sent to that body a formal message in which he 
said, ''the enemy refused * * * to permit us 
to have peace on any other basis than our uncondi- 
tional submission to their rule." War of the Rebel- 
lion, Series I, Vol. XLVI, p. 446 ; Stephens' War Be- 
tween the States, Vol. II, pp. 621, 792, 623. To 
sustain this interpretation, he laid before the body 
the written report of the three Confederate commis- 
sioners, in which Messrs. Stephens and Hunter and 
Campbell said, ''We understand from him (Lincoln) 
that no terms or proposals of any treaty, or agree- 
ment, looking to an ultimate settlement, would be 
entertained or made by him with the Confederate 
States." Messrs. Davis and Stephens and Hunter 
and Campbell are equally guilty of the grossest mis- 
representation and shameful dishonesty, if they 
knew that Mr. Lincoln had said that they could 
have Union on their oivn terms. 

16 



Having sent this account to the House of Repre- 
sentatives, Mr. Davis straightway called for a mass 
meeting of citizens in the African Church (the 
largest building in Richmond), and made, what Mr. 
Stephens called, the most Demosthenian speech since 
the days of Demosthenes, in which he told his hear- 
ers that the Hampton Roads Conference had demon- 
strated the diplomatic hopelessness of their cause, 
and called upon the country to make a last desperate 
military effort. Mr. Stephens himself gave up in 
despair, and went to his home in Crawfordsville, 
Georgia. This is all incredible, upon the supposi- 
tion that Mr. Lincoln had said to all the commis- 
sioners, or to any one of them, at Hampton Roads, 
''You can have Union on your own terms." 

Did Messrs. Stephens, Hunter and Campbell 
consciously misrepresent Mr. Lincoln, and impose 
upon Mr. Davis? They were honorable gentlemen. 
Did Mr. Davis misrepresent Messrs. Stephens and 
Hunter and Campbell, and impose first upon the 
Confederate House of Representatives, and then 
upon the public? The thing is unbelievable. 

When Mr. Davis sent to the Confederate Con- 
gress the report of the Hampton Roads commission- 
ers, the Senate and the House passed joint resolu- 
tions. The preamble recited the previous efforts 
which the Government had made to get peace by 
negotiations,, and then said concerning the Hampton 
Roads effort: 

"They (the commissioners), 'after a full conference with 
President Lincoln and Secretary Seward, have reported that 
they were informed explicitly that the authorities of the 
United States would hold no negotiations with the Confed- 
erate States, or any of them separately; that no terms, except 
such as the conqueror grants to the subjugated, would be 
extended to the people of these States; and that the sub- 
version of our institutions, and a complete submission to 
their rule, was the only condition of peace.' " 



Then the Congress passed the resolutions, ac- 
cepting the issue, calling upon the army and the 
people to redouble their efforts, and invoking the 
help of Almighty God. Mr. Stephens was President 
of the Senate and Mr. Hunter was a member of it; 
and we are seriously asked to believe that they 
sat there and heard this false interpretation of Mr. 
Lincoln and the conference, and saw this desperate 
action of their Congress, without opening their 
mouths to inform those bodies that they could have 
Union on their own terms. One cannot believe that 
Mr. Stephens was so guilty. 

In reviewing this whole Hampton Roads affair in 
1881 when he was writing his great History, Mr. 
Davis says -: 

"I think the views of Mr. Lincoln had changed after he 
wrote the letter to Mr. Blair of June 18th, and the change 
was mainly produced by the report of what he saw and heard 
at Richmond on the night he (Blair) staid there." — "Rise 
and Fall of the Confederate Government," Vol. II., p. 618. 

It is perfectly certain that Mr. Lincoln had some 
terms in his mind when he first sent Blair to Mr. 
Davis. They were probably concessory in their 
nature. The report somehow got out that he might 
be in a yielding frame of mind when he should meet 
the commissioners from the South. Hence the 
newspapers of the North were circulating it, and 
when the conference was over, the House of Repre- 
sentatives called upon him to report exactly what 
had been done. Mr. Davis thinks that what he 
learned from Mr. Blair about the desperate condi- 
tion of the Confederacy caused him to change his 
mind. It is also likely that, in the interim while 
the conference was being arranged for, he also felt 
the spirit and temper of those about him who were 
implacable towards the South. At any rate, Mr. 
Davis says that the President of the United States 

18 



declared at the conference that he would accept 
nothing but "unconditional surrender." We may 
fairly suppose that, after the lapse of so many 
years, when writing about it with the war all over, 
he would have said something about Mr. Lincoln's 
generous attitude at Hampton Roads, if he had ever 
been told by any of the commissioners that the 
President of the United States had said to any one 
of them that the Confederacy could have Union on 
its own terms. 

The Story of Alexander H. Stephens. 

At the time, and later, a great many divergent 
reports were spread abroad as to what did actually 
occur at the Hampton Roads Conference. Mr. 
Stephens, one of the principal actors in it (and be- 
cause of these variant reports) devotes the whole of 
his twenty-third chapter in the second volume of his 
history of the War Between the States (published in 
1870), to the Hampton Roads Conference. He un- 
dertook to give the substance of what each member 
of the conference said, with considerable detail, and 
in the order of each speaker. His chief object was to 
make public the internal facts of the meeting, and 
clear all misunderstandings and misrepresentations. 
At the close of his narrative, he wrote, ''This is as 
full and accurate an account as I can now give of the 
origin, the objects, and the conduct of this Confer- 
ence, from its beginning to its end" (p. 619). The 
following is a fair summary of his long account : 

STEPHENS— Well, Mr. President, is there no 
way of putting an end to the present trouble 
(p. 599) ? 

LINCOLN — There is but one way — those who 
are resisting the laws of the Union must cease their 
resistance (p. 600). 

CAMPBELL — How can a restoration to the 

19 



Union take place, assuming that the Confederate 
States desire it (p. 609) ? 

LINCOLN — By disbanding their armies, and 
permitting the national authorities to resume their 
functions (p. 609). 

HUNTER — Then there can be no agreement, no 
treaty, no stipulation — nothing but unconditional 
surrender (p. 616) ? 

SEWARD — No words like ''unconditional sur- 
render" have been used (p. 616) . 

HUNTER — But you decline to make any agree- 
ment with us, and that is tantamount to "uncondi- 
tional surrender" (p. 617). 

LINCOLN — The Executive would exercise the 
powers of his office with great liberality (p. 617). 

STEPHENS— Mr. President, I hope you will re- 
consider (p. 618). 

LINCOLN — Well, Stephens, I will reconsider, 
but I do not think I will change my mind (p. 618). 

Boil down this long narrative of Mr. Stephens 
to a single terse phrase, and put that phrase in the 
mouth of Mr. Lincoln at the conference, and it is not 
''Union, on your terms," but it is "Union, on terms 
of the complete surrender of the South." 

Stephens : War Between the States, Vol. Ill, 
pp. 576-624. 

A publication appeared in the Augusta (Ga.) 
Chronicle and Sentinel on June 7, 1865, purporting 
to give Mr. Stephens' version of the Hampton Roads 
Conference. It was republished in many other 
papers. Mr. Stephens in his Recollections, a diary 
which he kept while a prisoner in Fort Warren, 
makes sixteen entries concerning the Hampton 
Roads Conference, several of them bewailing this 
newspaper article. He describes it as "a discordant 

20 



jumble of facts which presents almost anything but 
the truth" (p. 264). 

His early biographer, Henry Cleveland, who 
wrote in 1866, while Mr. Stephens was still alive 
and accessible, says : 

"He (Mr. Stephens) has often been heard to say that his 
views in consenting to take part in that conference, can never 
be fully understood without a knowledge of the true objects 
contemplated by the authors of the mission. These he has 
never disclosed, and does not yet feel himself at liberty to 
disclose. '^ * * The report (of the commissioners) con- 
tains the exact truth touching the points embraced in it; but 
the real object of that mission was not embraced in it. This 
was verbally and confidentially communicated." — "Letters 
and Speeches," pp. 198, 199. 

This biographer says that "he (Mr. Stephens) 
has, on several occasions, told a few particular 
friends, some things that transpired." Then he 
adds, "particularly the agreeableness of the inter- 
view, the courteous bearing of Mr. Lincoln and Mr. 
Seward; but he has always objected to giving the 
public any account whatever beyond that contained 
in the official report of the commissioners." 

Finally, in 1870, Mr. Stephens told his whole 
story of the conference in his History — and failed 
to put in it anything like the story of the sheet of 
paper and Union on any terms. 

Judge Campbell's Account. 

This is to be found in the Southern Magazine for 
December, 1874, p. 191. This careful, judicious and 
judicial gentleman says : 

"In conclusion, Mr. Hunter summed up what seemed to be 
the result of the interview: that there could be no agree- 
ments by treaty between the Confederate States and the 
United States, or any agreements between them; that there 
was nothing left for them but unconditional submission." 

21 



According to ''this member of the commission 
they got nothing at Hampton Roads, when all the 
four hours' conversation was boiled down to its 
essence, but a proposition of ''unconditional submis- 
sion." This, however, would not be true, if Mr. 
Lincoln said anything approximating, ''Let me 
write Union, and you can write after it what you 
please." 

Senator Hunter's Account. 

Both Mr. Stephens in his History and Judge 
Campbell in his Recollections represent Senator 
Hunter as summing-up and reducing to a nut-shell 
the sum and substance of all that had been proposed 
in the four-hour conference. Consequently great 
weight ought to be attached to his account of the 
meeting. It is to be found in the "Southern His- 
torical Society Papers," Vol. Ill, pp. 168-176. It 
was written in April, 1877. 

Mr. Hunter opens his narrative with some ac- 
count of the occasion and origin of the conference. 
Then he says that Mr. Stephens seemed "possessed 
with the idea that secession was the true remedy 
for sectional difference," but neither Mr. Lincoln 
nor Mr. Seward "countenanced the idea for a mo- 
ment." Then Mr. Stephens "revived the old Mon- 
roe Doctrine, and suggested that a reunion might be 
formed on the basis of uniting to drive the French 
out of America," but Mr. Hunter says, "this was 
received with even less favour than I expected." 
Continuing he says, "Their (Lincoln and Seward) 
whole object seemed to be to force reunion and an 
abolition of slavery." Then an "armistice" was 
proposed and talked about, but it "was promptly op- 
posed by the President and Secretary of State." 
Then he says, "I asked him (Lincoln) to communi- 
cate the terms, if any, upon which he would negoti- 

22 



ate with us. He said he could not treat with us 
with arms in our hands; in rebellion, as it were, 
against the Government." Mr. Hunter concludes 
his story : 

"They (Lincoln and Seward) would hint at nothing but 
unconditional submission, although professing to disclaim 
any such demand. Reunion and submission seemed their 
sole conditions. Upon the subject of the forfeiture of lands 
**=•=! said that nothing was left us but absolute sub- 
mission both as to rights and property. * * * Mr. Sew- 
ard, it is true, disclaimed all demands for unconditional sub- 
mission. But what else was the demand for reunion and 
abolition of slavery, without any compensation for the ne- 
groes or even absolute safety for property proclaimed to 
have been forfeited?" 

According to this story, at the Hampton Roads 
conference the members talked first about ''seces- 
sion," and made no progress towards getting to- 
gether on that theory. Then they talked about 
Blair's proposition, the Monroe Doctrine, and Mex- 
ico, and still made no progress. Then they con- 
ferred about an ''armistice," and got nowhere. 
Then Mr. Hunter asked Mr. Lincoln on what terms 
they could have reunioyi, and he would "hint at 
nothing but unconditional submission." Then he 
inquired what safeguards they could expect for 
their slaves and their property, and he referred 
them to his mercy. Mr. Hunter says — and he was 
there — "that nothing was left us but absolute sub- 
mission both as to rights and property." And yet 
there are some — who were not there — who ask us 
to believe that Mr. Lincoln said something like, 
"You can have Union, on your own terms !" 

Mr. Hunter says it was "reunion" that they 
were talking about, and what the Confederates 
wanted to know was the terms. Mr. Lincoln "would 
hint at nothing but unconditional submission." 

23 



That certainly is not the same thing as saying, ''Let 
me write Union, and you can write what you please 
after it." 

Congressman Goode's Account. 

Mr. John Goode was a Virginia member of the 
Confederate Congress in 1865, when the Hampton 
Roads Conference was held. In the March Forum 
of 1900, Vol. XXIX, pp. 92-103, he has published 
his version of this conference. It has an evidential 
value, because it is based upon a conversation which 
he had with one of the Confederate commissioners 
in Richmond soon after his return from Hampton 
Roads. His story agrees with all the other pub- 
lished accounts. The terms, according to his in- 
formant, were ''unconditional submission." There 
is nothing in it which approaches — "Union, and 
then what you please." 

Judge Reagan's Account. 

On the formation of the Provisional Government 
of the Confederate States at Montgomery, Alabama, 
Mr. John H. Reagan of Texas was made Postmaster 
General in the Cabinet of Mr. Davis, and contin- 
ued in this office to the end of the war. Always in 
the confidence of his chief, and loyal to him through- 
out the whole conflict, he was taken prisoner with 
him at the wind-up of it all. 

He published his "Memoirs'' in 1906. He had all 
the controversies and allegations about the Hamp- 
ton Roads Conference before him, and devoted the 
thirteenth chapter of his book to the subject. He 
says : 

"During recent years there has been an extensive discus- 
sion through the public prints of the questions which rose at 
the Hampton Roads Conference. It has been asserted over 
and over that President Lincoln offered to pay $400,000,000 
for the slaves of the South to secure an end of the war; and 

24 



that he held up a piece of paper to Mr. Stephens, saying: 
'Let me write the word Union on it, and you may add any 
other conditions you please, if it will give us peace.' I am 
probably not using the exact words which were employed, 
but I am expressing the idea given to the public, in the dis- 
cussion. It has frequently been alleged that Mr. Stephens 
said these offers were made. This has been repeated by 
citizens of acknowledged ability and high character, and it 
has been said that these offers could not be acceded to 
because the instructions given to the Commission by Presi- 
dent Davis prevented it * * * I shall submit evidence 
that no such propositions were ever made." 

The ''evidence" which Judge Reagan presents is 
the joint report of the Confederate Commissioners 
to Mr. Davis ; the message of Mr. Davis to his Con- 
gress based upon that report; the resolutions of the 
Confederate Congress predicated upon the reports 
made to them ; Mr. Lincoln's message to the Federal 
House, on the subject; and Secretary Seward's let- 
ter to Mr. Adams, the American minister to Great 
Britain. Then he says : 

"While it is true that some respectable men have as- 
serted that Mr. Stephens told them of Mr. Lincoln's alleged 
offer,* '•■ * and I have all their statements in writing or 
print, * * * there must have been some misunderstand- 
ing as to his language, for he was an honorable and truthful 
man, and a man of too much good sense to have made such 
allegations in the face of such record as is here presented.'' 

Then Judge Reagan names the following persons 
as those who have said that Mr. Stephens made the 
assertions about the piece of paper and Union, and 
about the $400,000,000 for the slaves : Hon. Henry 
Watterson of Kentucky, Rev. E. A. Green of Vir- 
ginia, Dr. R. J. Massey of Georgia, and Mr. Howell 
of Georgia. 

Over against these four, he sets the following 
eight gentlemen who allege that Mr. Stephens denied 
to them that he ever made such statements : Rev. 
F. C. Boykin of Georgia, Mr. R. F. Littig of Mis- 

25 



sissippi, Hon. James Orr of South Carolina, Hon. 
Frank B. Sexton, Col. Stephen W. Blount of Texas, 
Mr. Charles G. Newman of Arkansas, Gov. A. H. 
Garland of Arkansas and Senator Vest of Missouri. 
Inasmuch as four reputable gentlemen affirm, 
and eight reputable gentlemen deny. Judge Reagan 
disposes of the matter by saying that ''there must 
have been some misunderstanding as to the lan- 
guage" which Mr. Stephens did use. 

Col- Henry Watterson's Account. 

Col. Watterson is the editor of the Louisville 
Courier-Jouvfial and the most brilliant journalist 
on the American continent. He has recently told the 
story of the Hampton Roads affair in his newspaper. 
In an editorial of May 2, 1916, under the caption, 
'The Might-Have-Beens of History," he says: 

"There had been many epistolary and verbal exchanges 
between the two Capitals, Washington and Richmond, before 
this fateful conference had come to pass. The parties to it 
were personally well known to each other. Mr. Lincoln and 
Mr. Stephens were indeed old friends. The proceedings were 
informal and without ceremony. At the outset it was agreed 
that no writing or memorandum should be made of what 
might be said or done. It is known, however, that at a certain 
point, the President of the United States and the Vice 
President of the Southern Confederacy, sitting a little apart 
from the rest, Mr. Lincoln took up a sheet of paper and said 
by way of completing the unreserved conversation that had 
passed between them, "Stephens, let me write Union at the 
top of this page and you may write below it whatever you 
please.' He had already committed himself, in the event 
that the Southern armies laid down their arms and the 
Southern States returned to the Union, to the payment of 
$400,000,000 for the slaves. That such an opportunity for the 
South, then on the verge of collapse, to end the war should 
have been refused will remain forever a mystery bordering 
on the supernatural." 

He then characterizes President Lincoln as "the 
Christ-man who had thrown out a life-line," won- 



ders if it all were due to "the hand of God," moral- 
izes about Napoleon, and prophesies direfully for 
the German Kaiser. He then introduces this para- 
graph : 

"It will be recalled that Mr. Jefferson Davis was wont 
to dwell upon the reluctance with which he quitted the Union, 
and joined in establishing the Confederacy. Yet, at the su- 
preme moment, he could not see his way clear to an ad- 
vantageous peace by honorable agreement. He let the golden 
moment pass and went, taking with him the cause he had 
maintained during four years so valiantly, to precipitate and 
complete extinction." 

Mr. Davis was not in the conference. We have 
seen the report, which the commissioners brought 
back to him, informed him ''that no terms or pro- 
posals of any treaty or agreement looking to an ulti- 
mate settlement would be entertained or made by 
him with the authorities of the Confederate States." 
If the commissioners told him the truth, that he 
could get "no terms," how did Mr. Davis "let the 
golden moment pass?" If Mr. Lincoln said to Mr. 
Stephens, "Let me write Union, and you can write 
what you please," and Mr. Stephens withheld this 
information until after the war was over, it would 
seem that it was he who "let the golden moment 
pass." Mr. Watterson writes like one obsessed with 
admiration for Mr. Lincoln, "the Christ-man," and 
biased against Mr. Davis, the President of the Con- 
federacy. 

When his editorial of May the 2nd was charac- 
terized as "fiction" by the Oklahoma City Times 
and the Macon Telegraph, Mr. Watterson replied in 
an editorial of June 20th in the Courier- Journal, 

in which he said: 

"That Mr. Lincoln said on the occasion of the Hampton 
Roads Conference, what is denied as 'fiction,' rests upon the 
statement of Mr. Stephens himself, made to many persons of 
the highest credibility. It admits of no doubt whatever. It 
does not appear in the official documents, because it was 

27 



not a part of the formal proceedings, but an aside during an 
interview between Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Stephens. They were 
warm personal friends — old Whig colleagues — Lincoln an 
ardent admirer of Stephens, whom he wanted to ask to be- 
come a member of his Cabinet when he was elected President. 
The two had drawn apart from the rest. 'Stephens,' said Lin- 
coln, as Mr. Stephens reported the conversation to many of 
his friends, 'you know I am a fair man and I know you to 
be one. Let me write Union at the top of this page, and you 
may write below it whatever else you please. I am sure you 
will write nothing I cannot agree to.' Mr. Stephens replied 
that the commissioners were limited to treating upon the 
basis of the recognition of the independence of the Confed- 
eracy alone. 'Then, Stephens,' said Lincoln sadly, 'my hands 
are clean of every drop of blood spilled from this time 
onward.' " 

Mr. Watterson says this story ''does not appear 
in the official documents," and the reason is ''because 
it was no part of the formal proceedings/' He 
has told us that "no writing or memorandum was 
made," and so there could have been no "official 
documents" prepared by the conference. He has 
told us that "the proceedings were informal and 
without ceremony," and yet he says this story does 
not "appear" because it is "no part of the formal 
proceedings." He says it was "an aside," made as a 
kind of private remark, while Mr. Lincoln and Mr. 
Stephens were sitting apart from the rest. Contin- 
uing in his editorial of June 20th, he says : 

"Mr. Davis did not see Mr. Stephens at all. But all that 
Mr. Watterson has averred in this regard was told the night 
of his arrival in Richmond by Mr. Stephens to Mr. Felix G. 
DeFontaine, with whom he lodged and who, when the facts 
were disputed, made oath to the truth of them, as did also 
Dr. Greer, Mr. Stephens' pastor, and Gen. John B. Gordon and 
Evan P. Howell, of Atlanta, to whom later along, Mr. Ste- 
phens likewise related them, as indeed he had done to Mr. 
Watterson himself." 

Here Mr. Watterson says "Mr. Davis did not see 
Mr. Stephens at all" — presumably after his return 
from Hampton Roads. But Mr. Stephens says in 

28 



his long narrative in his History, ''We reported to 
him (Davis), verbally, all that had occurred at the 
Conference. * * * In this report to him, I gave 
it as my opinion. * * * I called Mr. Davis' at- 
tention specially to the fact. * * * I gave it to 
him as my opinion that there should be no written 
report by the Commissioners touching the Confer- 
ence. * * * I again yielded my views on that 
point." Mr. Davis did not deal with Mr. Blair in 
the beginning of this business without making a 
written memorandum of what was said, and sub- 
mitted it to Mr. Blair. He saw the blunder of the 
commissioners in making no written memorandum 
of what was said at Hampton Roads. He wisely 
required that the report to him should be in black 
and white, so that he could be protected against 
misrepresentation in the matter. If Mr. Stephens 
may be believed — and he may be — he did see Mr. 
Davis after he returned from Hampton Roads, and 
had every opportunity of telling him that Mr. Lin- 
coln had said, ''Stephens, let me write 'Union' at the 
top of this page and you may write below it what- 
ever you please." If Mr. Lincoln said it, why did 
not Mr. Stephens tell his President, the Confederate 
Congress, and all the South, and change all the 
results? 

Did Mr. Lincoln say it? Did Mr. Stephens say 
he said it? Here are two questions. Let us take 
them up separately and see if we are not shut up to 
Judge Reagan's conclusion that there is a "misun- 
derstanding" somewhere. 

(1). If Mr. Lincoln said it, his Message of Feb- 
ruary 10th was not frank and disingenuous. It 
suppressed a vital fact. At that time the news- 
papers had filled the atmosphere with disturbing re- 
ports, some giving it out that the President of the 

29 



United States had been yielding, and others that he 
had been uncompromising. Besides, there were two 
groups at Washington, vexing Mr. Lincoln, the one 
urging that terms be made with the South, and the 
other implacable in its attitude and urgings. Here 
was a context, which caused the House of Repre- 
sentatives to ask him for the truth about the mat- 
ter. He replied, saying he believed his Message 
contained "all the information sought." That Mes- 
sage — if our alleged story was fact — ought to have 
said, in substance, "I offered them Union on their 
own terms, and they declined my offer." But his 
Message did not say that. It said, ''I offered them 
the terms I had previously laid down to Secretary 
Seward, namely, (1) submission, (2) emancipation, 
(3) disbandment of their armies, and then such 
mercy as the President of the United States might 
be pleased to show them." If he thus kept back 
material fact, while professing to give "all the in- 
formation sought," his admirers must think him 
something else than "the Christ-man." Had he 
made such an offer and had it refused, it is unbeliev- 
able that he would not have told the country, and 
extinguished the peace-troublers who were torment- 
ing him. Nicolay and Hay, his heroizing biograph- 
ers, do not put this story into his mouth. Why did 
they not tell it, to illustrate his kindliness and chiv- 
alry to his foe? Moreover, why should he have 
made such a proposition? His game was as good as 
in his bag, and he knew it. Appomattox was on the 
7th of April, and this conference was on the 3rd of 
February preceding. 

(2). If Mr. Lincoln said it, why did not Messrs. 
Stephens, Hunter and Campbell seize upon it, even 
with avariciousness, and hurry back to Richmond 
with it, give it out to the President of the Confed- 



eracy and to the Southern Congress? They were 
the leaders of the party at Richmond who desired 
and believed that peace could be had by negotiation. 
They had been sent by their Chief Magistrate to the 
meeting to get the best terms they could, and the 
terms — according to this story — were, ''Union on 
your own terms." Yet we are asked to believe that 
they came back and told Mr. Davis and the country 
that they found Mr. Lincoln implacable — no 
''terms," "conditions," "proposals," "agreements," 
"truce," or "armistice," except they "submitted" 
and threw themselves upon the mercy of the Presi- 
dent of the United States. Did they misinform their 
Chief? Did Messrs. Stephens and Hunter sit in 
Congress the next day, and see that body pass reso- 
lutions, frantically calling upon the country to exert 
itself to the last extremity, because no terms could 
be had, when they privately knew that they could 
have "Union on their own terms"? What right had 
they to keep back the very heart and substance of 
what had been proposed at the conference? They 
were honorable gentlemen. Besides, they were 
critics of Mr. Davis. Why did they not use the in- 
formation — if they had it — to triumph over Mr. 
Davis, save "the golden moment" and the country 
from "precipitate and complete extinction"? For 
the sake of a hearsay story, lionizing Mr. Lincoln, 
are we to blast the good name of the three Con- 
federate Commissioners? 

(3). If Mr. Lincoln said it only as an "aside" 
to Mr. Stephens for his private benefit, how was it 
done? They were all together, during the entire 
time, in the cabin of a small steamer. Why should 
Mr. Lincoln have whispered it to Mr. Stephens so 
that the others could not hear him? What motive 
could he have had, in such a conference, for whisper- 

31 



ing in the ear of Mr. Stephens, ''any terms you 
want," and then saying out loud to Messrs. Hunter 
and Campbell, ''no terms whatever"? Why should 
Mr. Stephens receive such an "aside," and keep it 
from his fellow-commissioners? Why did he not 
get Mr. Lincoln to say it out loud? Why should he 
keep such a secret from his associates? Carrying 
such a secret in his bosom, why did he not say to 
Mr. Davis, "Don't send that Message — I have 'aside' 
information, and will seek release from privacy"? 
Why did he not say to the Congress, "Don't pass 
those frantic resolutions — I have knowledge up my 
sleeve"? Secret? Private? Why, Mr. Watterson 
says he told it to Mr. DeFontaine and Dr. Greer, the 
first night he got to Richmond! Why could he not 
have told Mr. Hunter and Mr. Campbell on the way ? 
If he did, his fellow-commissioners were not igno- 
rant of it when they reported to Mr. Davis. 

(4). If Mr. Lincoln said it to Mr. Stephens as 
an "aside," and then put him under the bonds of 
secrecy, why did he not write it down, after the war 
was over, and all obligations of secrecy had been 
removed by the death of Mr. Lincoln and the col- 
lapse of the Confederacy? He frequently wrote 
about the Hampton Roads Conference, with the 
avowed purpose of telling its whole inside history. 
Why did he not set down this story in something 
that he wrote? The public was confused about it. 
Some were saying that it was true, and some were 
saying that it was false. He himself became in- 
volved in a controversy with Senator B. H. Hill 
about it. Why did he not put it in black and white? 
He was a bitter critic of Mr. Davis. In all his 
voluminous writing about the war, after it was all 
over, he ceaselessly put the blame for the failure 
upon the Administration. Upon the supposition that 

32 



it was fact, can we imagine that he would not have 
somewhere written it down, and upon it made a tell- 
ing point against the Administration? But none 
can point to the story as put down by his own pen, 
and above his own signature. The best they can do 
is to try to interpret his written words in such a 
way as to make them seem to support the story. 

(5). But they say that Mr. Stephens verbally 
told this story *'to many friends." If eight men, 
good and true, aver that they heard Mr. Stephens 
tell this story, eight other men, just as good and 
just as true, aver that they heard Mr. Stephens say 
that he did not tell it. If the first eight write or 
print their assertion, the second eight write or print 
their assertion. 

What conclusion shall we reach and rest in ? Mr. 
Stephens w^as a Christian gentleman of the highest 
piety, a statesman of the highest honor, a patriot of 
the purest loyalty. All the records and all the cir- 
cumstances are inconsistent with the story that he 
ever said anything like what is imputed to him. He 
could not have been malignant and vengeful, nor 
yet stupid, enough to have withheld from Mr. Davis, 
his fellow-commissioners, the Confederate Congress, 
and the country at large, information, which, being 
known, might have saved ''the cause" which Mr. 
Davis had maintained so "valiantly" for four years 
from "precipitate and complete extinction." 

Judge Reagan's conclusion is the only reasonable 
and fair one, namely, that there must have been 
some "misunderstanding" of Mr. Stephens' w^ords, 
when he was speaking freely and conversationally 
with his friends about the Hampton Roads Con- 
ference. 

In a recent issue the New York Times gave the 
following account of the Hampton Roads Confer- 
ence: 



"At Hampton Roads, he (Lincoln) refused to accept any 
proposal except unconditional surrender. He promised 'clem- 
ency,' but refused to define it, except to say that he indi- 
vidually favored compensation for slave owners, and that he 
would execute the confiscation and other penal acts with the 
utmost liberality. He made it plain throughout that he was 
fighting for an idea, and that it was useless to talk of com- 
promise until that idea was triumphant. We are aware, of 
course, of the long-exploded myth telling how he offered Ste- 
phens a sheet of paper with 'Union' written on it, and told 
the Confederate statesman to fill up the rest of the paper to 
suit himself. 'He offered us nothing but unconditional sub- 
mission,' said Stephens on his return, and he called the 
conference, therefore, 'fruitless and inadequate.' " 

The Courier-Journal (Dec. 23, 1916) takes this 
as a text, and miswrites again the ''long-exploded 
myth" as veracious history, and upon it takes occa- 
sion to reflect upon Mr. Davis and to characterize 
Mr. Lincoln as ''a kindly, just man." 

How, in the name of all that is frank and fair, 
unbiased and unprejudiced can the accomplished 
Southern editor blame Mr. Davis for not taking ad- 
vantage of information obtained through the Hamp- 
ton Roads Conference, for the benefit of the people 
over whom he presided? The proposal to hold the 
Conference came to him from Washington; he ap- 
pointed commissioners out of sympathy with his 
general administration, honest believers that some- 
thing could be done by negotiating, and more likely 
to have the favourable ear of Mr. Lincoln than any 
other persons in the Confederate Government ; left 
them unhampered by instructions, a free-hand to 
do the best they could. These gentlemen brought 
back the report that they could get no "terms" or 
''agreements." The conference was a dismal failure 
because Mr. Lincoln was implacable. 

If the Confederate commissioners, all or any one 
of them, had private and "aside" information that 

34 



might have been used to the advantage of the South- 
ern people, it was they who suppressed it, and void- 
ed all the possible results of the conference. No 
one can believe that Mr. Stephens or Mr. Hunter or 
Judge Campbell, all or any one of them, were so un- 
patriotic. This story about ''Union, on your own 
terms," reflects most upon Mr. Stephens, for the 
allegation is that it was made known to him pri- 
vately, and there is no evidence that he ever com- 
municated it to his chief who sent him. 

The Summing-Up. 

The quotations in this brief show that neither 
President Davis nor Vice President Stephens, nor 
any one of the Confederate commissioners, had any 
public, or sub rosa, information, obtained through 
the Hampton Roads Conference, which they failed 
to make use of to the benefit of the Southern people. 

To continue to repeat this story about Union and 
then what you please, in view of the records pre- 
sented in this monograph, is nothing short of a 
fabrication of history. It is based upon reports of 
the free conversational talks of Mr. Stephens about 
this meeting, and he was wont to complain, with 
great bitterness, about hearsay misrepresentations 
of him. 

All the actors in that celebrated Conference are 
now dead and gone. They were every one gentle- 
men of the highest reputation and honor. They 
were all incapable of any unpatriotic or duplicitous 
action. Each of them, and some of them more than 
once, has put on record, in cold print, his account of 
what transpired at that Conference, and neither of 
them has intimated that there was some vital in- 
formation that -was not revealed, or, being known, 
was not used. 

36 



Mr. Lincoln told Congress what he knew about 
it. Mr. Seward set down in black and white what 
he knew about it. The three Confederate commis- 
sioners, Messrs. Stephens, Hunter and Campbell, 
made a formal statement of what they knew about 
it. These were all the members of the Conference, 
and all the persons who could have had first-hand 
\l information of what was said and done on Feb. 3, 
1865, on board the River Queen at anchor in Hamp- 
ton Roads. President Davis gave to the Confederate 
Congress his version of what occurred as it was 
given to him. Years after the war, Mr. Stephens 
wrote much in books and newspapers about what 
did occur according to his recollection. Mr. Hunter 
also set down his recollections, and Judge John A. 
Campbell also put to record his remembrances of it. 
Judge John H. Reagan and other gentlemen who 
were present in Richmond at the time, and publicly 
connected with administrative affairs, have also 
written their versions, gotten from general sources. 
In all fairness, these ought to constitute the 
veracious history of the Hampton Roads Confer- 
ence, and it is altogether historically illegitimate for 
any man to read into this record a report, founded 
upon the alleged free conversations of one man, 
who himself subsequently wrote much on the sub- 
ject, but nothing which supports the alleged story; 
and which report needlessly reflects upon the hon- 
orable participators in that Conference. 

Julian S. Carr, 

Durham, N. C. 
January 15, 1917. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 700 



941 9 (H 



